[Avodah] Separate tables

[Chana Luntz]

RZS writes [on Areivim, in a discussion about gender segregated seating
at home meals -micha]:
> There are several mentions of sending the kos shel bracha to the women.
> And the incident where the men forgot to do so, and either Martha or
> Yalta, I forget which, broke an expensive item to show her displeasure
> at the slight.

It was Yalta, but why do you assume that she was not in the same room
as them? With Sarah Imanu we were told she was in the tent. And we are
also told that the reason she was able to hear was that the entrance
of the tent was behind the malach. But with Yalta, (the story is on
Brachos 51b), the most reasonable explanation is that she was there.
Ulla gave the cos shel bracha to her husband. Her husband said, you
should send it to Yalta (I don't think the fact that it uses the term
send is significant you can send if somebody is in the same room as you)
as seems to have been the custom. Ulla said, a woman is only blessed via
her husband [ie therefore I should give it to you, and then if you want
you can give it on to her]. Yalta heard all this and got up and stormed
up to the wine cellar and broke four hundred barrels of wine. If she was
in another room, she is not likely to have overheard the interchange
(unless listening at the door like Sarah Imanu, which there was no
suggestion she was), so I think it far more likely that she was there.

>> In contrast, we have the whole discussion about women being part of
>> the kat for korban pesach, where unrelated families joined together, and
>> it would seem from that mishna and gemora there that the women ate with
>>the men.

> 1. I don't think it was common for unrelated families to join together
> in a chavura; this was only done if a family was small.   And remember
> that a lamb is quite small, so even at a bare kezayit each it doesn't
> feed that many.

Well Rav Moshe (Iggeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 1 siman 41) quotes from
Eicha Raba that according to Rav Chiya there could be 40 or 50, and
according to Bar Kaparah there could be 100 per pesach.

> 2. From the fact that a kallah is given permission to turn her face and
> eat from the korban Pesach, I assume at the rest of the meal it isn't
> an issue because she's not eating in front of the men anyway and therefore
> doesn't feel the need to turn away.  She's only embarrassed when the
> korban Pesach comes out and she's suddenly forced to eat in front of
> her new male relatives, whom she doesn't yet know well.

Well since we posken like Rabbi Yehuda (on Pesachim 84b) that says you
cannot eat in two places, she has to eat the rest of her meal there as well,
so it is not just the korban pesach, but the whole meal.  

Actually though, it is not my analysis that the discussion surrounding the
korban pesach makes it clear that men and women may eat together, but Rav
Moshe's in the teshuva I quoted above.  He goes on to argue that the fact
that the Mishna prohibits women and slaves from making a chabura together on
Pesachim 9a because of tiflus, means that men and women yisraelim are
permitted.  And why would Rav Ukva bar Chaninah say that we are not
permitted to form a group of women alone [ie Rav Ukva assumes that we cannot
have a group of women alone, and while Rava disputes this, the very hava
mina of Rav Ukva would not make sense if in fact the halacha was that women
were supposed to and normally did eat alone].  And Rav Moshe then goes on to
use the fact that she is turning her face away from men she didn't know very
well as proof that there was no mechitza, and that therefore the men were
able to see her and that as a new kala she was likely to be embarrassed.

>> And (moving to the time of the early achronim) even the whole
>> discussion about sheva brochos and those who say one should not recite
she
>> hasimcha bimono is based on a Bach who was commenting on the fact that
on the
>> second day, the minhag in Crakow was not to say shehasimcha bimono,
>> and explains the reason for this being that on the second day they
>> tend to seat men and women in one room, which they didn't do on the
first
>> day by the wedding.

> Actually that's not based on the Bach but on the Sefer Haminhagim.  The
> Bach merely quotes it.

The Bach in his commentary on the Tur quotes the Sefer HaMinhagim. The Sefer
HaMinhagim actually quotes the Sefer Chassidim (and the Bach correctly
sources this in his teshuva on the subject (Chadashot siman 55)).  However
given the rather ambiguous position of the Sefer Chassidim in the halachic
tradition, I think it is fair to say that it got into the mainstream via the
Bach.

The Sefer HaChassidim actually says that it is a problem if men and
women see each other (presumably they would therefore need to either make
Kiddush themselves or hear it from behind a non see through mechitza).
It is also really not very clear that the Bach himself should be
understood the way he has generally been understood, because if you look
at the longer teshuva I quoted above, he goes on to say that while on
the second night they only have relatives and they sit together men and
women and hence one should not say hasimcha bimono but on leil Shabbat and
Shabbat shachrit, where in Krakow the minhag is only to have "bacharim
u'betulot" [it is OK, since] "v'ain behem hirhurei averah"(!?!) and the
problem is "davka ksheseduan nashim beulat baal b'leil bet". So the
problem seems to be, at least according to the Bach, as understanding the
minhag of seeing married women. [It does seem very odd is this because
this is held before the regular time of onah, and hence we might assume
husbands and wives would be flirting??]

>> Which, while it assumes separate seating for a wedding, assumes the
>> opposite for a more intimate gathering like sheva brochos on the
>> second day.

> Yes, it documents that that was the custom in Cracow, for whatever
> reason; perhaps because it was a smaller group, and could therefore easily fit
> in one room so there was no need for two.  But the fact that shehasimcha
> bim'ono wasn't said in such a setting shows that it was not regarded as
> quite proper, even though everyone did it anyway.

Yes, it was because on leil bet there was a smaller group, and people
were able to eat in the "beit choref". Well was it that it was indeed
not proper, or was it an explanation of the minhag, ie that people were
following a view (ie the Sefer Chassidim) that led to the minhag. Also,
there has long been a distinction between public and private, and while
Rav Moshe may see a wedding and hence sheva brochos as having the status
of private, it is not an unreasonable position to hold otherwise given
the requirement for a minyan etc. But that does not mean that meals
that are not required to be public have the same din.

But regardless of the philosophical position, the Bach appears to regard
it as understood that absent a wedding or a very large feast, men and
women were sitting together. He doesn't suggest this is a break from
the past or unusual behaviour. So I am trying to find where you have any
evidence of your statement that men and women sitting separately for a
meal (not a wedding, which might as I have mentioned be regarded as a
public event, but a regular shabbas meal) has always been the Jewish way.
Whereas I cannot see any evidence of this before the advent of the
Chassidic movement (nor is it clear to me when this happened there,
although I guess it was always the man who went off to visit the rebbe,
and the woman stayed home for shabbas and yom tov, so there was an
enforced separation, that perhaps grew, ie it became normal for men
and women not to have shabbas and yom tov together and the idea that
separating husband and wife in this manner was not so terrible).

> Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment

Shavuah Tov
Chana